Can a One-Sided Identity Element in Groups Lead to Two-Sided Identity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of identity elements in group theory, specifically whether a one-sided identity can lead to a two-sided identity. The participants explore the definitions and properties of identity elements, noting that a left identity can be proven to be a right identity under certain conditions. They clarify that the existence of inverses does not inherently depend on the two-sidedness of the identity element. The conversation concludes that while left and right identities can be interchanged, mixing them does not yield valid group properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory fundamentals, including identity elements and inverses.
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation and proofs in abstract algebra.
  • Knowledge of left and right identities in groups.
  • Basic experience with logical reasoning and theorem proving.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of identity elements in group theory.
  • Research the implications of left and right inverses in algebraic structures.
  • Explore the definitions and axioms of groups in more depth.
  • Learn about theorems related to identity elements and their proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying abstract algebra and group theory, as well as educators looking to clarify the properties of identity elements in groups.

HyperActive
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Hi
I'm taking a math course at university that covers introductory group theory. The textbook's definition of the identity element of a group defines it as two sided; that is, they say that a group ##G## must have an element ##e## such that for all ##a \in G##, ##e \cdot a = a = a \cdot e## .

Is it possible to define a group's identity element as one-sided, and then prove two-sidedness as a theorem? Or is it an intrinsic property of group identities?

I started with a left-identity ##e \cdot a = a## and tried to prove that ##e \cdot a = a = a \cdot e## and kept hitting walls, so I though I'd better check if it's doable.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you change the assumption that there exists a two-sided identity, how are you going to modify the assumption that each element has an inverse? That assumption mentions the two-sided identity.
 
Thanks for the reply Stephen Tashi. :)
In my book, the assumption that each element has an inverse is stated as follows: for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##a \cdot b = e##. That doesn't seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element (and neither it seems to me does the left-handed version of the statement, for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##b \cdot a = e##). So other than noting that in these definitions ##e## refers to a left identity, I'm not seeing how I would need to modify them.

Could you please clarify this?
 
You can weaken the group axioms to require only the existence of a left inverse and a left neutral element:
(i) ## e g = g##
(ii) ## g^{-1} g = e##

Then every left inverse is a right inverse:
##g g^{-1} = e g g^{-1} = (g^{-1})^{-1} g^{-1} g g^{-1} = (g^{-1})^{-1} g^{-1} = e##
And every left neutral element is a right neutral element:
## g e = g g^{-1} g = e g = e##.
(The proof uses the fact that ##g^{-1}## is a right inverse, which I proved before.)

You can of course replace "left" by "right" and get similar results. You can't mix them, though: Having left inverses and a right neutral element doesn't suffice.
 
HyperActive said:
: for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##a \cdot b = e##. That doesn't seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element

The point is that the meaning of the statement a \cdot b = e depends on what you mean by the notation "e".
 
Thank you both very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
963
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
937
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
988
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K